Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Rezumarea primului mesaj :

Cele mai recente mesaje publicate de mine pe acest subiect:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854193#msg854193
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854648#msg854648
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg855840#msg855840

Pana acum, cea mai importanta dintre toate conspiratiile (modificarea cronologiei istoriei) a ramas un subiect de care nu am avut timp sa ma ocup prea mult, data fiind dezbaterea legata de forma pamantului.

Noua cronologie (propusa de A. Fomenko) unde vechimea istoriei este de doar 1000 de ani, nu merge deloc prea departe; asa cum vom vedea din dovezile prezentate mai sus, istoria noastra nu are mai mult de 364 de ani vechime.

O mica incursiune in acele mesaje; eruptia vulcanului Vezuviu care a distrul orasul Pompei a avut loc la sfarsitul secolului XVIII, si nicidecum in anul 79 e.n. Dovezile prezentate de A. Fomenko (si alti autori) arata clar ca Grecia antica, Roma antica, Egiptul antic si Babilonul antic au fost inventate in sec. XV (cronologia lui Fomenko) si de fapt in a doua parte a sec. XVIII (cronologia propusa de mine).

Meritul lui Fomenko este acela ca a fost primul mare cercetator care a descoperit ca Iisus Christos a fost de fapt crucificat la Constantinopole (Troia; vezi cartile sale pentru detalii); in cronologia sa, in anul 1185 e.n., in noua cronologie in perioada 1770 e.n., vezi explicatiile oferite in linkurile de mai sus.

Puteti gasi cartile lui A. Fomenko pe www.scribd.com sau pe www.books.google.com History: Science or Fiction?, volumele 1 si 2, multe alte lucrari pe linkurile de pe flatearthsociety.org/forum.

Potopul a avut loc in anul 1700 e.n.; exodul lui Moses fiind de fapt exilul lui Akhenaten (adoratorul planetelor Marte si Venus, si fiul lui Nimrod) petrecut cam prin 1790 e.n. Troia era de fapt Constantinopole, iar Hagia Sophia (construita de Nimrod), templul lui Solomon (care nu a existat niciodata la Ur-Shulim, sau Ierusalim, locul unde se dezvoltase cultul lunar si planetar, Saturn si Marte).

Primul fiu al lui Noe a fost Pelasg si nicidecum Shem (nume inventat ulterior); Misraim a fost Osiris, ucis de fratele sau Kush (Seth); despre marele zid chinezesc (construit dupa 1900), Versailles, Escorial, Ermitaj si celelalte vestigii istorice vezi linkurile de mai sus.

Aisus era trac si nicidecum evreu, evenimentele care au avut loc la Constantinopole fiind mutate ulterior din punct de vedere cronologic si istoric la Ierusalim, de catre iezuiti (urmasii lui Misraim, cultul Soarelui, care au avut conflicte cu urmasii lui Kush/Nimrod/Akhenaten, templierii, cultul lunar si al planetelor Saturn - hexagrama, si Marte - pentagrama), care au falsificat toata istoria antica incepand cu 1770 e.n.

Vom arata ca Sinodul de la Niceea nu putea sa aiba loc inainte de anul 876-877 e.n., ca manastirile de la Cozia, Putna, si Voronet nu puteau fi construite decat dupa anul 1750 e.n., ca N. Copernic, G. Galilei, J. Kepler si I. Newton sunt personaje fictive inventate dupa anul 1780 e.n., ca Almagest atribuita lui Ptolemeu este o lucrare din perioada Renasterii, ca Parthenon si Pantheon au fost construite pe timpul Renasterii, ca inainte de anul 1700 e.n. pe teritoriul actual al Elvetiei nu exista prezenta umana, si multe alte detalii.

Nu mai am nimic de zis!
Totusi (avand in vedere denumirea topicului pe care ai postat) iti dau un sfat (pentru tine... te rog sa nu mi-o iei in nume de rau ...nu cred ca faci parte dintre ,,nihilisti'')
Nu ti-ai ales bine lectura.....

Distinsul nostru administrator de site nu cunoaste limba engleza: Caddyshack este numele unui film celebru din 1982...daca vroiam sa jignesc foloseam alta apelare.

S-a descoperit chiar si Troia acolo unde a localizat-o Homer!

Ruinele de la Hissarlic si dispunerea straturilor arheologice nu indica vreo corespondenta semnificativa cu istoria legendara a Troiei antice. S-ar putea spune chiar ca razboiul cu Troia nu a avut niciodata loc.

Poti citi despre Troia = Constantinopole aici:

History: Science or Fiction? table of contents, chapters 1 and 2, volume I


Chapter 1
The problems of historical chronology
1. Roman chronology as the foundation of European chronology
2. Scaliger, Petavius, and other clerical chronologers. The creation of contemporary
chronology of the ancient times in the XVI-XVII century a.d.
3. The veracity of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology was questioned as early as the XVI century
3.1. Who criticized Scaliger's chronology and where.
3.1.1. De Arcilla, Robert Baldauf, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson, Wilhelm Kammeyer
3.1.2. Sir Isaac Newton
3.1.3. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov
3.1.4. Recent publications of German scientists containing criticisms of Scaliger's chronology.
3.2. The questionable veracity of the Roman chronology and history. The hypercritical school of the XIX century
4. The problems in establishing a correct chronology of "ancient" Egypt
5. The problem in dating the "ancient" sources. Tacitus and Poggio. Cicero and Barzizza. Vitruvius and Alberti
6. Timekeeping in the Middle Ages. Historians discuss the "chaos reigning in the mediaeval datings." Peculiar mediaeval anachronisms
7. The chronology and the dating of Biblical texts
8. Difficulties and contradictions arising from the reading of old texts
8.1. How does one read a text written in consonants exclusively? The vocalization problem
9. Problems in the Scaligerian geography of Biblical events
9.1. Archaeology and the Old Testament
9.2. Archaeology and the New Testament
10. Ancient historical events: geographic localization issues
10.1. The locations of Troy and Babylon. 10.2. The geography of Herodotus is at odds with the Scaligerian version
10.3. The inverted maps of the Middle Ages
11. A modern analysis of Biblical geography
12. The mysterious Renaissance epoch as a product of the Scaligerian chronology
13. The foundations of archaeological methods have been based on the Scaligerian
chronology from the very beginning
13.3. The alleged acceleration of the destruction of the "ancient" monuments
13.4. When did the construction of the Cologne Cathedral really begin?
13.5. Archaeological methods are most often based on Scaliger's datings
13.6. One of the numerous problems of the Scaligerian history - the problem of bronze manufacture before the discovery of tin.
14. The problems and deficiencies of dendrochronology and several other dating methods
14.1. The consequent scale of dendrochronological datings does not extend further back in time than the X century a.d.
14.2. Sedimentary layer datings. The methods of radium-uranium and radium-actinium analysis
15. Are radiocarbon datings to be trusted?
15.1. The radiocarbon datings of ancient, mediaeval, and modern specimens are scattered chaotically
15.1.1. Libby's initial idea. The first failures
15.1.2. A criticism of the application of the radiocarbon method to historical specimens
15.2. The dating of the Shroud of Turin
15.3 Modern radiocarbon analysis of Egyptian artifacts demonstrates serious contradictions
16. Critical analysis of the hypotheses on which the radiocarbon method is based. By A. S. Mishchenko
16.1. W. F. Libby's initial idea
16.2. Physical basics of the radiocarbon method
16.3. The hypotheses that the radiocarbon method is based upon
16.4. The moment of the object's departure from the exchange reservoir
16.5. Radiocarbon content variations in the exchange reservoir
16.6. Variations in radiocarbon content of living bodies
18. Numismatic datings

Chapter 2
Astronomical datings
1. The strange leap of parameter D" in the Theory of Lunar Motion
2. Are the "ancient" and mediaeval eclipses dated correctly?
2.1. Some astronomical data
2.2. The discovery of an interesting effect: an unprejudiced astronomical dating
shifts the dates of the "ancient" eclipses to the Middle Ages
2.3. Three eclipses described by the "ancient" Thucydides
2.4. The eclipses described by the "ancient" Titus Livy
3. Transferring the dates of the "ancient" eclipses forward in time into the Middle Ages eliminates the enigmatic behavior of the parameter D".
4. Astronomy moves the "ancient" horoscopes into the Middle Ages
4.1. The mediaeval astronomy
4.2. The method of unprejudiced astronomical dating
4.3. Many "ancient astronomical observations" may have been theoretically calculated by late mediaeval astronomers and then included into the "ancient" chronicles as "real observations"
4.4. Which astronomical "observations of the ancients" could have been a result of late mediaeval theoretic calculations?
5. A brief account of several examples of Egyptian Zodiacs
5.1. Some general observations
5.2. The Dendera Zodiacs
5.3. The horoscopes of Brugsch and Flinders Petrie
5.4. Finite datings of the Egyptian Zodiacs based on their complete deciphering, as obtained by A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy in 2001
5.5. On the errors of E. S. Goloubtsova and Y. A. Zavenyagin
6. Astronomy in the New Testament

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+fiction+or+science&hl=ro&ei=hU-MTYGtFsrpOfOvjKEC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+fiction+or+science&hl=ro&ei=0lGMTf6IGMrpOfWvjKEC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Iar titlul acestui sir de discutii ar trebui sa fie Istoria Lumii: 468 de ani vechime.

468 = 9 x 52 cicluri venusiene

1544 data nasterii lui Enoh (adevaratul fiu al lui Adam si Eva)
1564 se naste Noe
1584 se naste Pelasg primul fiu al lui Noe
1596 are loc Marele Potop

1648 incepe calendarul Maya, 7 x 52 cicluri venusiene (pana la 2012)
1700 exodul lui Akhenaton din Egipt catre Canaan

Nibiru/Soarele Negru (vezi fotografiile din Antarctica postate la Here Comes the Sun) este corpul ceresc care va cauza eclipsa solara care va dura cam vreo 3 zile, un cataclism cosmic global care va arata tuturor ca pamantul nu se roteste in jurul vreunui soare; asta asteapta germanii din Thule de peste 65 de ani, pentru a reveni.


50000 sau 5000 de ani vechime? IN NICI UN CAZ...

Despre datarea cu radiocarbon:

http://www.creationism.info.ro/pagini/cs/cs9.html
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg967986#msg967986 (cea mai formidabila bibliografie despre falsitatea datarii cu izotopul C14 si multe alte forme de datare)

Isotopic dating: science or fiction?

http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm (must read)

Ice core dating: science or fiction?

http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html (must read)

Sunt spuse la acest topic lucruri extrem de interesante. Dar nu se poate sti si cat de adevarate sunt.
Astfel, mai importanta decat informatia citita pe un forum ca acesta, este intrebarea cine spune acea informatie. Intrebare exponential de importanta proportional cu "perplexitatea informatiei". Formulat altfel, "isi asuma cineva responsabilitatea pentru informatia" respectiva? In acest sens nu pot sa nu ma intreb daca forumul de "flatearth" nu cumva are ca sarcina (secreta) sa impanzeasca mintile oamenilor cu idei absurde, "dovedite" insa (semi)stiintific?

O sursa inepuizabila de aberatii o constituie interpretarea observatiilor. Asta insemnand ca aceleasi rezultate ale unor observatii tehnice, stiintifice sau observatii simple, pot fi interpretate foarte diferit de catre persoane diferite. De aceasta situatie nu se pot apara nici oamenii de stiinta care nu rareori "abereaza stiintific" de indata ce ies din cadrul experimental. Ce sa te poti astepta de la semidocti?

Cu toate acestea, se pot pune intrebari incomode privitoare la o mie de fenomene care nu se "incadreaza" in explicatia stiintifica acceptata, ceea ce nu implica neaparat ca cineva, doct sau semidoct, are voie sa dea niste raspunsuri (de regula perplexitoare).

sandokhan, cunosc teoria pamatului plat și fix de la tine și mai puțin de pe internet. Am și eu multe nedumeriri privind sistemul heliocentric. Nu înțeleg cine are interes de a ascunde adevărul. In momentul de fata utilizând sateliți cu camere de lat vederi sar putea vede clar forma pământului ca este plat…
Iată pământul văzut de diferiți sateliți.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/satellite.html

In majoritate pozelor se vede clar ca pământul este sferic. Ce să mai cred?

Multumesc, Nic !

nic, aici discutam despre noua cronologie...iarasi nu ti-ai facut temele deloc. Ti-am explicat deja cum sunt falsificate imaginile de pe satelit, ai si videourile cu satellite transit care iti arata altitudinea reala la care orbiteaza (pe baza cosmic ray device a lui N. Tesla). Probabil ca uiti toate acestea inainte sa postezi, dar te iertam. Ai si explozia de la Tunguska vizibila de la Londra, peste 5680 de km de obstacol vizual, asta daca vrei sa intelegi.

mman, de acord cu tine in ceea ce priveste alte mesaje alte altor utilizatori care nu au depus niciodata munca de cercetare evidentiata aici, dar de ce nu aplici ideile tale asa numitelor ipoteze subiective ale lui Rutherford si Bohr, declarate a doua zi de mass media din acei ani drept teorii stiintifice obiective?

Noi aici ne bazam, in caz ca nu ti-ai dat seama inca, pe DOVEZI CLARE, VERIFICABILE. Iata cateva exemple pentru tine.

Regulile pentru combinarea calendarelor solar si lunar de cand biserica sarbatoreste Pastele sunt date in Cartea Pastelui, conditiile fiind descrise in lucrarea Colectie de Reguli ale Sfintilor Parinti ai Bisericii scrisa de carturarul medieval Matei Vlastar (sec. XIV), vezi mesajul anterior pentru descriere.

Deci, pana in aproximativ 1330 e.n., ultima conditie a Pastelui fusese incalcata, iar eroarea de care Vlastar era constient, este de 24 de ore in 304 ani. Daca Vlastar ar fi stiut ca si Cartea Pastelui a fost canonizata in 325 e.n., el ar fi observat decalajul de trei zile care se acumulase intre luna plina calculata si cea reala in mai mult de o mie de ani.

G. Nosovsky a comparat formula Pastelui derivata de K.F. Gauss in sec. XIX (pentru secolele I - XVIII) cu datele Pastelui obtinute din Cartea Pastelui: trei din patru conditii impuse de Sinodul de la Niceea au fost incalcate pana in anul 784 e.n.

Iata acum pasaje din lucrarea lui Nosovsky, dovezi clare ca istoria ultimilor 2000 de ani au fost falsificate la greu, deci afirmatiile tale nu se aplica in cazul nostru aici.

G. NOSOVSKY, DATING THE NICAEA COUNCIL

Demonstratia superba a colegului lui A. Fomenko, Gleb Nosovsky, pe baza celor mai exigente si clare dovezi astronomice, ca datarea conciliului de la Niceea (cronologia oficiala, anul 325 e.n.) nu putea avea loc INAINTE DE ANUL 875 E.N.

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098

Sa urmarim cu atentie argumentele...

Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the “the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed”, and the Easter date table “that had been used for centuries” had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since “every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start… the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence”.



THE NICAEAN COUNCIL OF 325 AD CONTRADICTS THE PASCHALIA

There is a traditional consensual opinion according to which the Paschalia church calendar was canonized during the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Nobody seem to be aware, however, that all of this blatantly contradicts Scaliger’s dating of the Nicaean council – 325 AD, and the epoch of the IV century AD in general.

The matter here is that the Paschalia consists of a number of calendarian and astronomical tables. The time of their compilation can be calculated from their contents qv below. In other words, the Paschalia can be dated by its astronomical contents. We see that the resulting dating of the Paschalia contradicts the dating of the Nicaean Council as the IV century AD.

The contradiction had been discovered a long time ago, and it was mentioned in the beginning of the XX century by Easter table specialists. However, to this day, there has been no comprehensive explanation of this phenomenon given.

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”.

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar’s text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:

In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:

1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.

2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.

The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:

3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called “Lawful Easter” in Christian clerical literature – that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses – or, alternatively, that of “the 14th Moon”.

4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.


THE FOURTH RULE BROKEN

The first three rules of four were still quite valid in the XIV century, according to Vlastar, whereas the 4th rule of Easter Sunday being the first Sunday after the full moon was already broken.

Furthermore, Matthew Vlastar gives a perfectly valid astronomical explanation of why the rule was broken. The reason is that the Circle for Moon (Methon’s Cycle) isn’t completely precise. There is a very slow shift of real full moon dates in relation to the ones stated by the Circle for Moon that the Elders of the Council may have been unaware of. However, in the age of Matthew Vlastar, knowledge of the shift already existed. Vlastar was aware of it and gave its correct value – about 24 hours in 300 years.

This is why no less than two days should pass between the full moon and Easter (according to Vlastar, and applicable to his age). The matter is that the calculations of the Christian Easter are based on the calendar with its Circle for Moon values, as opposed to real full moon dates given by astronomy.

When, over the passage of time, a two-day discrepancy between the Paschalian Circle for Moon and the real full moon schedule had evolved, this could not fail to impact the distance between the astronomical spring equinox and Easter Sunday. If the previous distance equalled “zero or more” (so that Easter could not come before the full moon), it became “equalling two or more” so that the Easter could not come earlier than two days after the full moon.

However, most often the amount of days separating the full moon and Easter Sunday, exceeded two, anyway, since the rules have it so that one had to wait for the Easter’s advent from the vernal full moon and until the closest Sunday, that is, about three days (half a week) in average, and more than two days in most cases.

So the two-day gap that had accumulated by the age of Vlastar did not always manifest, and no rules were broken in the years when several days had to pass between the full moon and Easter.

However, in certain years, when the distance proved less than two days, the 4th Easter rule was broken, namely, Easter Sunday fell on the second Sunday after the vernal full moon. For example, if the Passover falls on a Saturday, Easter has to be celebrated the next day, on Sunday.


Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.


The conclusion we came to:

FIRST STATEMENT:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.

This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.

Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.

SUMMING UP THE DATINGS OF THE NICAEAN COUNCIL

The Paschalia could have been compiled in the following timeframe:

- not any earlier than 784 AD by the actual definition of Easter;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the coincidence of Paschalian and astronomical full moons;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the Palm of Damascenus;
- not any earlier than 743 AD according to Matthew Vlastar;

Hence, the Paschalia was first compiled earliest around the second half of the VIII century AD. The Paschalia was canonized at the Nicaean Council that took place in the XI-XIV centuries. The Paschalia might well have contained certain astronomical concepts of the VII-XI centuries that had already been a part of the ecclesial tradition by that time.

Ai inteles mman? Concluziile senzationale despre aceste descoperiri la pagina 3 de aici, te rog sa le studiezi cu atentie.

Ai si arhiva C. Pfister la dispozitie, dovezi clare ca inainte de anul 1700 e.n. pe teritoriul actual al Elvetiei nu exista prezenta umana. Ai si cartile lui Fomenko, care iti arata, de exemplu, ca Almagest (semnat "Ptolemeu") este o lucrare care nu putea fi alcatuita inainte de anul 800 e.n.

Daca vrei mult mai mult, vezi dovezile arheologice de la Pompei/Herculane...NU ai studiat destul ce am prezentat eu aici, altfel nu faceai astfel de remarci, sa le zicem superficiale.

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3423 (citeste cu atentie)

Iata si citatul din Leo Diaconus, care arunca in aer toata cronologia oficiala, anii 900 - 1600 e.n., asta daca vrei sa intelegi intr-un mod inteligent...mai citeste o data ce ai scris tu, si compara cu ce postez eu...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1131770#msg1131770

Poate vrei sa inveti de la unul dintre cei mai mari arheologi din lume in acest moment, Gunnar Heinsohn...citeste concluziile sale bazate doar pe dovezi arheologice, nu exista absolut deloc perioada istorica 2100 - 600 i.e.n.:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html

Ce facem cu celelalte dovezi despre Iisus la Constantinopole?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1131078#msg1131078

Despre acceleratia elongatiei lunare, alte dovezi verificabile:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#2349



Deci, [...], eu zic sa studiezi bine ce scriu eu aici...si vei descoperi, poate spre surprinderea ta, ca stiu bine de tot ce postez...extraordinar de bine...iti las cateva saptamani sa aprofundezi tot materialul, de la Fomenko la Pfister...vezi si Book of Civilization cu citate din G. Kasparov...mult succes.



[Din păcate, acest mesaj mă obligă să te avertizez din nou că foloseşti prea multă engleză, prea multe lincuri şi chiar îi jigneşti pe ceilalţi. Te rog să nu abuzezi de timpul nostru! Lasă-ne să ne gândim la lucruri cu adevărat interesante!]

Te rog sa nu-mi mai deformezi numele intrucat e interzis de regulament. Asa si eu te pot apela [...].

Te anunt ca lungimea respectabila a postarii tale, [...], nu tine loc de putere de convingere. Autorii la care apelezi si care tin loc de dovezi, nu sunt credibili pentru mine sau pentru altcineva. In mod normal, atunci cand sustii niste perplexitati trebuie sa le dovedesti cu dovezi materiale, fizice si nu cu autori neverificati de romane stiintifico-fantastice sau cu teorii-presupuse neconfirmate de experimente stiintifice.

Sandokhan
Tu vezi imaginea din antetul forumului nostru?

Abel, tu ai uitat ce inseamna cercetare bazata pe bibliografie...citatele tale despre rotatia atmosferei cu care ai venit aici, nu sunt tot o forma de bibliografie? Am pus linkuri cu cele mai interesante si exceptionale citate, dovezi...de ce vorbesti asa? Ce impresie le faci vizitatorilor? Ai vazut ceva fara rost postat de mine pana acum? Doar cele mai precise dovezi astronomice. Te rugam sa inveti limba engleza...daca vrei sa ajungi la un nivel de cercetare mult mai bun. Arata-mi mie unde am jignit cu ceva pe miciman...folosesti toate aceste tertipuri pentru ca iti dai seama ca nu ai cum sa explici faptul ca regulile emise de sinodul de la Niceea au fost incalcate timp de peste 450 de ani...nu lasa sentimente neplacute sa-ti umbreasca ratiunea...nimic din ce ai scris nu se poate aplica mesajului meu precedent, care include, asa cum doriti voi, doar dovezi clare si precise din astronomie.


Calculele lui Nosovsky, bazate pe formula extrem de precisa a lui Gauss, nu mai au nevoie de comentarii. Intre scrierea si canonizarea Cartii Pastelui exista un secol, conform cronologiei oficiale, iar datele Pastelui ortodox se repeta la fiecare 532 de ani, ciclul incepand si in anul 877 e.n. Formula lui Gauss ne arata ca trei din cele patru conditii impuse de conciliul de la Niceea au fost incalcate chiar incepand cu anul 325 e.n. (ales de J. Scaliger, si pe baza caruia voi toti acceptati aceasta cronologie) si pana in anul 784 e.n.

Regulile pentru combinarea calendarelor solar si lunar de cand biserica sarbatoreste Pastele sunt date in Cartea Pastelui, conditiile fiind descrise in lucrarea Colectie de Reguli ale Sfintilor Parinti ai Bisericii scrisa de carturarul medieval Matei Vlastar (sec. XIV), vezi mesajul anterior pentru descriere, din citatul din limba engleza semnat Nosovsky.

Deci, pana in aproximativ 1330 e.n., ultima conditie a Pastelui fusese incalcata, iar eroarea de care Vlastar era constient, este de 24 de ore in 304 ani. Daca Vlastar ar fi stiut ca si Cartea Pastelui a fost canonizata in 325 e.n., el ar fi observat decalajul de trei zile care se acumulase intre luna plina calculata si cea reala in mai mult de o mie de ani.

G. Nosovsky a comparat formula Pastelui derivata de K.F. Gauss in sec. XIX (pentru secolele I - XVIII) cu datele Pastelui obtinute din Cartea Pastelui: trei din patru conditii impuse de Sinodul de la Niceea au fost incalcate pana in anul 784 e.n.

Deci, miciman, te faci de ras, venind aici cu comentarii absurde: ti-am pus la dispozitie cele mai precise dovezi istorice/astronomice.

Ai la dispozitie si consecintele imediate ale faptului ca Sinodul de la Niceea nu putea avea loc decat DUPA anul 877 e.n., aici la pagina 3.

Ai citit citatul lui Leo Diaconus?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1131770#msg1131770

El ne spune ca solstitiul de iarna din anul 968 e.n. cadea pe 22 Decembrie; dar daca acceptam cronologia oficiala aceasta data trebuia sa fie 16 Decembrie, vei afla consecintele tocmai in acel mesaj.

Vrei date si mai precise? Bine.




miciman, ai la dispozitie trei consecinte:

1. Exista forte necunoscute in fizica
2. Legile fizicii s-au schimbat din mileniul trecut
3. TOATE inregistrarile astronomice datate 700 i.e.n. - 1200 e.n. sunt complet false, fiind alcatuite mult mai tarziu

R. Newton is one of the most prestigious astrophysicists of the 20th century, here is the impecable analysis of the ancient astronomical records:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm
http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

Citate ample din lucrarile lui R. Newton:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime-t124-20.htm#1488

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime-t124-20.htm#1494

In urma acestei lucrari, publicata la inceputul anilor 70 si care a creat senzatie la acea vreme, atat R.R. Newton cat si alti astrofizicieni au incercat sa modifice legea gravitatiei (fie ea de presiune sau de atractie) astfel incat datele istorice sa poata fi validate.

Numai A. Fomenko si-a dat seama ca acele date au fost inventate ulterior, impreuna cu relatarile istorice la care se refereau.

Parametrul D" ne arata, clar si sigur, ca datele istorice/astronomice obtinute din diverse documente medievale/antice, perioada 500 i.e.n. - 1200 e.n., sunt absolut false, si au fost inventate mult mai tarziu, asa cum am vazut aici, cel putin dupa anul 1700 e.n.

Articolul original al lui A. Fomenko, THE JUMP OF THE SECOND DERIVATIVE OF THE MOON'S ELONGATION:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

Asa cum doresti, miciman, autori consacrati, date precise. Stiai de aceste lucruri? De ce trebuie sa ti le aduc aminte cu fiecare mesaj? Ce altceva ti-ai mai putea dori? Deci, te rog sa citesti si sa intelegi ca avem o cronologie oficiala complet gresita. ABEL, TE ROG SA CITESTI SI TU, DA? Daca iti place cercetarea despre miscarea de precesie, atunci vei vedea ca nu exista dovezi istorice/astronomice despre un astfel de fenomen in perioada 325 - 1600 e.n.

Mai vrei?




The fragments above are from the map "Regnum Neapolitanum", which appeared in 1570, according to the official chronology, in the famous Ortelius atlas "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum". The map shows an existing, "alive" town with the name "Pompeia" near Vesuvius.

Aceste harti au fost alcatuite in perioada 1730 - 1750, INAINTE de marea eruptie a vulcanului Vezuviu care a distrus atat Pompeii cat si Herculane...

http://books.google.ro/books?id=E1iLqLmbHVwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Features+of+the+Domenico&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (fotografia cu inscriptia care dovedeste ca, chiar si in contextul cronologiei oficiale, Pompeii si Herculane erau orase in plina activitate in anul 1631 e.n., pagina 2)

Alte detalii aici:

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/search/label/Domenico%20Fontana
http://www.archemail.it/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=456

Superarticolul lui Andreas Tschurilow (se pot traduce si celelalte pasaje din germana in engleza cu ajutorul google translate http://translate.google.com/# ):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en

CUM sa exista harti cu Pompei in anul 1570? Vorbim aici de Regnum Neapolitanum al lui Ortelius, fapt absolut acceptat de istoria oficiala, le puteti cerceta chiar voi pe google images. Dar inscriptia de mai sus care ne arata ca Pompei si Herculane erau orase in plina activitate in anul 1631 e.n.? Deci, miciman, iti inteleg frustrarea, dar nu ai de ce sa te simti asa, dovezile mele sunt impecabile. Dar despre geamurile de la Herculane, perfect netede, cu tehnologie din anul 1688, descoperita la St. Gobain?

CONSECINTELE FAPTULUI CA SINODUL DE LA NICEEA NU PUTEA AVEA LOC DECAT DUPA ANUL 877 E.N.:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3356

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3359

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3382

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3386

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3395

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3403

Abel si miciman, nu aveti cum sa scapati de aceste concluzii...norocul vostru ca gandesc eu si pentru voi...

Regulile canonizate la Sinodul de la Niceea, anul 325 e.n. dupa cronologia oficiala:

Regulile 1&2: Pastele nu este sarbatorit impreuna cu pastele ebraic si este celebrat dupa echinoctiul de primavara.

Regulile 3&4: Sarbatoarea sa aiba loc chiar dupa prima luna plina care are loc dupa echinoctiu, si nu in orice zi, ci in prima duminica dupa luna plina.

Cel care a oferit pentru prima data anul 325 e.n., pentru Conciliul de la Niceea, a fost personajul numit Joseph Scaliger, fondatorul cronologiei moderne, in anul 1583; iar aceasta data este cea mai indepartata pe care o putea alege in acel moment (corectia celor zece zile impusa de pontiful Grigore XIII in 1582 e.n.).

Abia la inceput de secol XIX, marele matematician K.F. Gauss a reusit sa descopere formula pentru datarea precisa a Pastelui incepand cu primul secol, era noastra.

G. Nosovsky a comparat formula Pastelui derivata de K.F. Gauss (pentru secolele I - XVIII) cu datele Pastelui obtinute din Cartea Pastelui: trei din patru conditii impuse de Sinodul de la Niceea au fost incalcate pana in anul 784 e.n.

G. Nosovsky este cercetator principal la Laboratorul de Analiza Numerica in Stiinte Naturale si Umaniste al Universatii din Moscova, unul dintre cei mai consacrati si recunoscuti matematiciani rusi ai momentului.

G. Nosovsky: The dating of the first ecumenical council of Nicaea and the beginning of the Christian era, Appendix in A. Fomenko: Empirico-Statistical analysis of narrative material and its applications to historical dating, volume 2, pg. 390 - 411, 1994 si New dating of nativity and crucifixion, 2003


Aici aveti poate cel mai senzational articol despre noua cronologie, si nu numai:

THE EASTER ISSUE, by G. Nosovsky:

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098

Cea mai precisa datare posibila, dovada impecabila ca Sinodul de la Niceea nu ar fi avut CUM sa aiba loc DECAT DUPA anul 877 e.n.

Aceste dovezi pot fi aratate oricarui istoric, om de cultura, matematician, si pot imediat indica cum a fost falsificata istoria oficiala.

Mai mult, asa cum am vazut, intre scrierea si canonizarea Cartii Pastelui exista un secol, conform cronologiei oficiale, iar datele Pastelui ortodox se repeta la fiecare 532 de ani, ciclul incepand si in anul 877 e.n. Formula lui Gauss ne arata ca trei din cele patru conditii impuse de conciliul de la Niceea au fost incalcate chiar incepand cu anul 325 e.n. (ales de J. Scaliger, si pe baza caruia voi toti acceptati aceasta cronologie) si pana in anul 784 e.n.

Regulile pentru combinarea calendarelor solar si lunar de cand biserica sarbatoreste Pastele sunt date in Cartea Pastelui, conditiile fiind descrise in lucrarea Colectie de Reguli ale Sfintilor Parinti ai Bisericii scrisa de carturarul medieval Matei Vlastar (sec. XIV), vezi mesajul anterior pentru descriere, din citatul din limba engleza semnat Nosovsky.

Deci, pana in aproximativ 1330 e.n., ultima conditie a Pastelui fusese incalcata, iar eroarea de care Vlastar era constient, este de 24 de ore in 304 ani. Daca Vlastar ar fi stiut ca si Cartea Pastelui a fost canonizata in 325 e.n., el ar fi observat decalajul de trei zile care se acumulase intre luna plina calculata si cea reala in mai mult de o mie de ani.

Aveti in mesajul meu precedent linkurile catre consecintele faptului ca Sinodul de la Niceea a avut loc cel putin dupa anul 877 e.n.


BIOGRAFIA LUI ABRAHAM ORTELIUS, autorul hartii Regnum Neapolitanum, care infatiseaza clar si sigur orasul POMPEI, in anul 1570 e.n., CA ORAS IN PLINA ACTIVITATE.

http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-ortelius

HARTILE LUI ABRAHAM ORTELIUS:

http://www.bergbook.com/htdocs/Cache530.htm

Vezi si:

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/search/label/Domenico%20Fontana
http://www.archemail.it/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=456


IAR ACUM CONSECINTELE FAPTULUI CA ERUPTIA VULCANULUI VEZUVIUS CARE A DISTRUS ORASELE POMPEI SI HERCULANE A AVUT LOC PUTIN DUPA ANUL 1570 E.N. (si cu celelalte dovezi precise, extindem perioada pana dupa anul 1700 e.n.; iar asa cum vazut in mesajele precedente, podul de la Drobeta nu ar fi avut cum sa fie construit de nici un fel romani):

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1479

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3356

Am reusit sa gasesc trei dintre cele mai bune carti ale lui A. Fomenko si G. Nosovsky (le aveti deja pe celelalte trei: History: Fiction or Science, vol. 1 si 2, Mysteries of Egyptian Zodiacs). (dati skip pe adfly, pentru a accesa paginile de download)

Acum, History: Fiction or Science, volumul 3, Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest:

http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/

http://www.mediafire.com/?2ljuudrjdnt (828 de pagini de informatii senzationale, cele mai bune dovezi si discutii)


Si, Dating Ptolemy's Almagest:

http://www.mediafire.com/?qnmmdljvxkm


Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and Its Applications to Historical Dating, volumul 1:

http://www.mediafire.com/?yz4i3ynvi2n


Dovezile extrem de precise care ne arata ca Almagest, atribuita lui Ptolemeu, a fost scrisa cel putin dupa anul 1009 e.n. Primele ciudatenii in legatura cu Almagest au fost scoase in evidenta de catre N. Morozov la inceput de secol trecut, care imediat a banuit ca are o origine medievala (desi prezenta in Almagest, steaua Achenar fusese vizibila in Alexandria numai incepand cu sec. XV).

Cele patru ocultatii descrise in Almagest nu puteau avea loc in 341 i.e.n. (Venus), 271 i.e.n. (Marte), 230 i.e.n. (Jupiter), 228 i.e.n. (Saturn), si nici in anii invecinati.

Singura solutie posibila a fost gasita de A. Fomenko si G. Nosovsky in perioada:

9 Septembrie 887 (venus)
27 Ianuarie 959 (marte)
13 August 994 (jupiter)
30 Septembrie 1009 (saturn)

Aceste descoperiri muta era lui Nabonassar in 480 - 490 e.n. si ar scurta istoria antica si medievala cu mai mult de douasprezece secole.

Si cele 21 de eclipse lunare din Almagest au fost datate cu precizie de catre Fomenko si Nosovsky: solutie unica, in care prima eclipsa a avut loc in 491 e.n., iar ultima in 1350 e.n.


Cuprinsul de la Mysteries of Egyptian Zodiacs:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1876

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/history/Zodiacs.html


History: Fiction or Science? volumul 1

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&hl=ro&ei=aySXTcStCYSAOsG23I4H&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Paginile 93 - 94 Despre acceleratia elongatiei lunare (deja postat in format jpg)
Paginile 95 - 97 Are ancient eclipses dated correctly?

Paginile 97 - 105 Eclipsele din Razboiul Peloponeziac a lui Tucidide, datate ca fiind in perioada medievala: 22 August 1039, 9 Aprilie 1046 si 15 Septembrie 1057 (singurele din perioada 600 i.e.n. - 1600 i.e.n. care se potrivesc cu descrierea facuta de Tucidide).

Pagina 105 Eclipsa lui Titus Livius si al lui Plutarh, datata ca fiind din anul 955 sau anul 1020 e.n., singurele solutii posibile

Pagina 110 - 112 Falsificarea observatiilor astronomice de origine antica/medievala


Robert Newton, unul dintre cei mai buni astrofizicieni ai sec. XX, autorul cartii Crima lui Claudiu Ptolemeu, si-a dat seama ca Almagest a fost scrisa de fapt de catre personajul Johannes Kepler, acesta fiind si autorul operelor semnate Hipparchus, Eudoxus si Aristarchus.


Cele mai precise dovezi care ne arata, iarasi, cum a fost falsificata istoria antica/medievala; motivul pentru care descendentii lui Osiris/Misraim s-au oprit din calcularea eclipselor lunare/solare (lasandu-le in perioada bizantina) devine clar, si anume munca prea laborioasa implicata in datarile astronomice, si nici nu aveau de ce sa le pese, abia la inceput de secol XX, N. Morozov a fost primul care a semnalat erorile si falsificarile din Almagest, iar despre celelalte eclipse, Fomenko si Nosovsky au fost primii, dupa 1990, care au corectat datarile eronate "antice".

Istoricii nostri ar trebui imediat sa tina cont de aceste informatii, in special de faptul ca Sinodul de la Niceea nu putea avea loc decat dupa anul 877 e.n. (iar aceasta este limita inferioara, Nosovsky crede ca acest Sinod ar fi avut loc in anul 1343 e.n.) si de cartea marelui istoric britanic Edwin Johnson, The Pauline Epistles, discutata deja aici.

Sandokhan,
Astazi e drept asistam la o accelerata si surprinzatoare dezvoltare tehnologica in toate domeniile, dar ma indoiesc ca tehnologia din antichitate si evul mediu sa condenseze istoria pe parcursul catorva sute de ani cum sustii tu ...si autorii cartilor pe care le citesti.In plus majoritatea istoricilor si a oamenilor de stiinta sustin istoria asa cum o cunoastem astazi...
Exista numeroase documente istorice (Casius Dio,
Strabon,Tacitus,Herodot,Tucitide,Iordanes,Theophane Byzantiu etc.)
Nu crezi ca ai putea sa citesti si despre operele lor?

[...] Am avut grija de toti autorii tai, cu dovezi sigure, inventati dupa anul 1700 e.n.:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1479

Ai si Book of Civilization la dispozitie, ca sa mai treci dincolo de setarile dogmatice:

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf (cele mai interesante dovezi despre inexistenta Romei si Greciei antice)

Daca e nevoie, o luam de la capat, cu Sinodul de la Niceea (care nu putea avea loc decat dupa anul 877 e.n.), cu datele astronomice din Egipt care ne parvin cel putin dupa secolul XII, adica au fost alcatuite dupa secolul XII, si cele trei volume ale lui Fomenko...

Despre falsificarea documentelor asa numite antice s-au scris multe...te rog sa accesezi arhiva Christoph Pfister...si cartea lui E. Johnson, The Pauline Epistles, cu dovezi clare de tot despre faptul ca Vulgata a aparut abia dupa anul 1592 (si asta conform cronologiei oficiale), precum si multe alte falsuri asa numite antice/medievale. Vezi si History: Fiction or Science, volumele 1 si 2 despre falsificarea documentelor...iar eclipsele lui Tucidide au fost clasificate ca fiind din perioada medievala, tocmai am mentionat asta in mesajul precedent...

Tocmai asta e problema, ca istoricii nu cunosc aceste chestiuni atat de vitale, ei doar accepta ce au citit in facultate...Manastirile Cozia, Voronet si Putna nu aveau cum sa fie construite decat dupa anul 1600 e.n., ca un exemplu...uite comentariul lui G. Nosovksy pe tema asta:

Calendarian issues are a part of chronology. The chronology belonged to the paradigm of mathematics and astronomy. This was the case in the XVI-XVII centuries, when the consensual Scaliger-Petavius version of chronology was created.

Since then, the perception of chronology has changed, and in the XVIII century already, chronology was considered humanity. As its essence cannot be changed, it remains a subdivision of applied mathematics to this day.

The historians are supposed to concern themselves with chronology. However, without a sufficient mathematical education – and in the case of chronological studies, sufficient means fundamental – the historians are forced to evade the solution and even the discussion of the rather complex chronological issues.

Every historical oddness and contradiction becomes carefully concealed from the public attention; in dangerous and slippery places the historians put on a “professional” mien, saying that “everything is really okay” and they shall “give you a full explanation” later on.

Falsificarea biografiei lui Dante:

http://www.revisedhistory.org/dante.htm

Falsificarea "operei" lui Josephus:

http://www.revisedhistory.org/dante.htm

Asa cum ai vazut deja, eruptia care a distrus atat Pompei cat si Herculane a avut loc cel putin dupa anul 1700 e.n., iar Almagest a lui "Ptolemeu" a fost alcatuit cel putin dupa anul 1009 e.n., ceea ce inseamna ca Antoninus Pius a fost inventat cel putin dupa acea perioada...


Iata inca o lucrare despre falsificarea istoriei antice:

http://www.ihaal.com/articles/A%20chronological%20revolution%20made%20by%20historical%20analytics.pdf


Falsificarea Manuscriselor de la Marea Moarta

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30145#30145

A Mysterious Metal

One of the best-kept secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been the discovery of metals in the black ink. That finding was buried in unpublished results, and wasn't unearthed until 1996. The presence of metals further points to the scrolls being of medieval origin.

Scientific testing of the scrolls in the early 1950s found silver, manganese, iron and other metals in the black ink used on the scrolls. Scholars tried to downplay the discovery of these metals by saying that some of them, like copper and lead, were byproducts of leaching from a bronze inkwell. Yet silver, manganese and iron are not components in the making of bronze. The 1990s tests also detected the presence of strontium and titanium but could not tell if they were pure. (In its purest form, neither element was isolated until the 1800s.)


Gunnar Heinsohn, despre inexistenta perioadei istorice 2100 - 600 e.n.:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html

Ce poti sa ne spui de Dromichaetes ,Burebista si Decebal?Cand au avut loc razboaiele dintre daci si romani?
....Si despre Matei Basarab,Alexandru cel Bun,Mircea cel Batran,Vlad Tepes,Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul...ce poti sa ne spui?
Intre ce ani au domnit?
Intre ce ani s-a format Moldova ? Dar Tara Romaneasca(Valahia)
Dacia a existat?

sandokhan citez acum dintr-un document scris de cronicarul Grigore Ureche (eu nu am linkuri) ajuns logofat sub Aron Voda in 1592.Documentul se numeste Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei , se afla in pastrare la Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei -sediul Colectii Speciale- si se refera la aparitia Tarii Moldovei..deci:

,,Dincepututul domniilor va leatul 6867

Intr-acei pastori ce au nemeritu locul acesta, fost-au si Dragos, carile au venitu de la Maramoros,carile sa vediia si mai de cinste si mai de folos decitu totii,pre carile cu totii l-au pus mai mare si purtatoriu lor.''

Ce vreau sa supliniez aici este anul:
Va leatul 6867.Cronicarii din acele vremi urmau cronologia dupa era bizantina.Pentru a afla anul erei noastre ,se scade din anul indicat de cronicar cifra 5508 ... nu spun de ce...
Restul deduci si singur....sau este fals ce spun eu?

Scuza-mi greseala de ortografie (din anumite motive, nu am avut timp sa recitesc articolul):
inlocuieste sa supliniez cu sa subliniez !

Cum adica ce pot sa spun? Am indicat deja ca TOATA istoria, nu numai a noastra, inainte de anul 1750 e.n. a fost complet falsificata. Primele universitati (infiintate de iezuiti dupa anul 1740) deja au incorporat in programul lor noua istorie falsa, includem aici faptul ca N. Copernic, T. Brahe, J. Kepler si G. Galilei nu au existat niciodata (vezi analiza senzationala facuta de G. Nosovsky in volumul 3 din History: Fiction or Science?).

Pentru rusi, A. Fomenko a descoperit numele calugarului iezuit care a falsificat istoria lor inainte de anul 1700, G. Miller; W. Kammeier (Germania), C. Pfister (Elvetia), H. Illig (Franta), E. Johnson (Anglia) au descoperit elemente similare, falsificarea complete a istoriei inainte de anul 1700 e.n.

Stim deja ca manastirile de la Cozia, Putna, Voronet NU AVEAU CUM sa fie construite inainte de anul 1600 e.n., pagina 3 de aici include toate detaliile.

Nu au existat nici Baiazid, Mehmet II, Suleiman Magnificul, nici Dromihete, sau Decebal; cronicile lui I. Neculce/G. Ureche sunt complet false; podul de la Drobeta nu avea cum sa fie construit de nici un fel de romani, aici detaliile:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p30-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1825
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p30-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1828
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p30-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1829
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p30-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1842
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p30-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1851

In opinia mea, cea mai misterioasa constructie din lume este Podul Uriasilor:





Legendele locale ne spun ca a fost construit de Iovan Iorgovan, adica Hercule/Nimrod, si, asa cum a fost construit si monumentul de la Baalbek (vezi https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p30-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1872 ), a fost utilizata levitatie pentru a deplasa/amplasa imensele blocuri de piatra.

Cadi, ai la dispozitie volumele lui Fomenko si Nosovsky despre Almagest: Ptolemeu nu a trait intre anii 85 - 165 e.n., TOATE datarile si datele astronomice din cartea sa provin cel putin dupa anul 900 e.n., iar ultimele adaugiri provin cel putin dupa anul 1350 e.n.

Nu a existat nici un fel de epoca bizantina, iata de exemplu citatul incredibil din Leo Diaconus:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1131770#msg1131770

Epoca in care au trait Dacii: 1600 - 1720 e.n. (Troianus, fiul lui Nimrod, ataca Dacia in 1720)
Epoca fanariota: 1760 - 1820, exista doar cateva decenii intre aceste doua epoci

Numai asa putem explica golul care exista in istoria noastra, anii 400 - 1200 e.n.

Vezi si dovezile de la Pompei/Herculane, si faptul ca Sinodul de la Niceea nu putea avea loc decat dupa anul 876 e.n.

Daca,,Podul Uriasilor'' a fost construit de Hercule inseamna ca ,,Istoria Lumii'' este mai veche de 500 de ani!
Si inca ceva :
daca Sinodul de la Niceea a avut loc in anul 876 e.n.( inseamna oare, ca a mai fost o era si inaintea erei noastre?) atunci eu stiu ca 876+500=1376 ori noi ne gasim in anul 2011! sau gresesc ?

P.S.
Si la fel daca tinem cont de ce declari tu Primele ciudatenii in legatura cu Almagest au fost scoase in evidenta de catre N. Morozov la inceput de secol trecut, care imediat a banuit ca are o origine medievala
Cele patru ocultatii descrise in Almagest nu puteau avea loc in 341 i.e.n. (Venus), 271 i.e.n. (Marte), 230 i.e.n. (Jupiter), 228 i.e.n. (Saturn), si nici in anii invecinati.

Singura solutie posibila a fost gasita de A. Fomenko si G. Nosovsky in perioada:

9 Septembrie 887 (venus)
27 Ianuarie 959 (marte)
13 August 994 (jupiter)
30 Septembrie 1009 (saturn)

Aceste descoperiri muta era lui Nabonassar in 480 - 490 e.n.
Inseamna ca :490+500=990 ! si tot asa...Ne aflam da sau nu in anul domini 2011?

Elementary my dear cadi.

Datarile false din cronologia oficiala ne permit sa intelegem ca acel Sinod de la Niceea nu putea avea loc decat dupa anul 876 e.n., si atunci toate istoria asa cum o cunoastem, perioada 1000 - 1600 e.n. este una complet contrafacuta, dupa anul 1700 e.n.

Am explicat deja de ce datele astronomice din Almagest se potrivesc cu perioada medievala/bizantina, pur si simplu se saturasera de munca laborioasa a calculelor pe care trebuiau sa le faca pana in antichitate.

Nimrod = Hercule, iar Nimrod a trait in perioada 1660 - 1710 e.n.

Datele prezentate aici sunt extrem de precise...personajul J. Scaliger a datat Sinodul de la Niceea intr-un mod complet gresit cu peste 500 de ani in plus...acceseaza arhiva C. Pfister ca sa vezi cum nu exista prezenta umana in tara cantoanelor inainte de anul 1700 e.n...

Explica-mi si urmatorul test:,,Aceste descoperiri muta era lui Nabonassar in 480 - 490 e.n. ''
Inseamna ca :490+500=990 ! si tot asa...Ne aflam da sau nu in ano domini 2011?

Ti-am explicat deja de doua ori pana acum.

Almagest a fost scrisa/alcatuita dupa anul 1730 e.n., datele astronomice fiind incluse la intamplare, asa cum a aratat Robert Newton in cartea The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (discutata si in History: Fiction or Science? volumul 3). Tot asa cum personajul J. Scaliger nu putea calcula luna plina pentru trecutul indepartat (fiind fortat sa aleaga anul 325 e.n. pentru Sinodul de la Niceea), calugarii iezuiti care au scris sub pseudonimele J. Kepler, C. Ptolemeu, N. Copernic si altii, se saturasera de calcule si au lasat totul, toate calculele si datarile astronomice, in perioada "bizantina", in Almagest (de aici si datarea perioadei lui Nabonassar in anii 480-490 e.n.).

Istoricii moderni ar renunta mai degraba la Traian si la Decebal, decat la Ptolemeu si la Almagest.

Istoria "antica" a Romei si Greciei este doar o fictiune, fara nici un fel de dovezi stiintifice; vezi descoperirile arheologice de la Pompei si Herculane care ne permit sa datam imediat eruptia vulcanului Vezuvius care a distrus aceste doua orase cel putin dupa anul 1700 e.n.

Istoria falsificata ar arata cu totul altfel daca Scaliger ar fi fost fortat de calcule precise sa dateze Sinodul de la Niceea in anul 876 e.n., nu ar mai fi apelat la migratia tribului ghuz (selgiucizii) catre Anatolia, si ar fi omis orice fel de detalii despre vreo batalie de la Manzikert, 1071 e.n., (care nu a avut loc niciodata). Turcii sunt urmasii troienilor.

TOT nu mi-ai raspuns la intrebare:
Tu ai scris aceasta fraza:
i]Aceste descoperiri muta era lui Nabonassar in 480 - 490 e.n. ''
Inseamna ca :490e.n.+500=990 e.n.! si tot asa...Ne aflam da sau nu in ano domini 2011e.n.?[/i]
Si o alta intrebare:
De ce scrii era noastra e.n.precum in ultimul tau articol:

Istoria falsificata ar arata cu totul altfel daca Scaliger ar fi fost fortat de calcule precise sa dateze Sinodul de la Niceea in anul 876 e.n., nu ar mai fi apelat la migratia tribului ghuz (selgiucizii) catre Anatolia, si ar fi omis orice fel de detalii despre vreo batalie de la Manzikert, 1071 e.n., (care nu a avut loc niciodata). Turcii sunt urmasii troienilor.


Inseamna ca a mai fost o era ...inaintea erei noastre?

Sandokhan, cu scuzele de rigoare am sa postez aici cateva informatii care mi se par cel putin interesante, daca nu chiar alarmante... pentru unii, dar care au cumva legatura cu tema acestui topic. Spor la studiu!

- http://www.projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discovery-strange-emissions-by-sun-are-suddenly-mutating-matter/
- http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
- http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Sun-Influences-the-Decay-of-Radioactive-Elements-153704.shtml
- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/strange-solar-particles-might-be-affecting-earths-radioactive-materials-scientists-say

Daca este considerata inoportuna existenta acestui mesaj in acest topic rog administratorul sa-l stearga sau sa-l mute unde considera ca ii este locul.

Universul este un tot unitar!

Spirit inside the matter!
Totusi aceste linkuri nu isi au locul aici!
Cred ca ar trebui trimise la rubrica ,,Misterele Universului''

CAdi te rog sa le studiezi un pic mai atent linku-urile, sa faci analogii, si extrapolari pe tema si vei gasi legatura cu acest topic. Mai ales cu ipoteza vechimii lumii. Crezi ca e prima data cand soarele emite asa ceva?

Superbe linkuri...mai ales cele care se refera la changing decay of radioactive elements...aici stim de ce se intampla acest lucru, e vorba de influenta curentilor telurici...

Singurul care si-a dat seama ca Mayan calendar include de fapt 364 de zile (iar 18 x 20 si 13 x 20 se refera la altceva) a fost Jose Arguelles. Si Book of Luminaries mentioneaza cele 364 de zile:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#71

Si atunci un mare an galactic (long cycle, long time count) al mayasilor nu reprezinta altceva decat o perioada de 364 de ani, fiecare compusa din 364 de zile (in Book of Luminaries o zi si o noapte sunt compuse din trei intervale insumand cam 24,0875 de ore obisnuite). Iar acesti 364 de ani includ toata istoria de fapt, inclusiv perioada care va urma (sfarsitul epocilor 5, 6, si 7, sau marele an compus din ekpyrosis si kataclysmos; Ragnarok fiind sfarsitul epocii 7). Revedeti linkurile cu falsificarea biografiilor lui Napoleon Bonaparte si Albrecht Haller...inceput de secol XIX...

http://www.calleman.com/content/articles/end_of_creationcycles.htm

Eu nu consider de loc ca istoria lumii poate sa aiba 500 de ani vechime!
Mi se pare o aberatie!
In primul rand ca ,tehnologic vorbind, istoria nu putea fi asa rapid ,,derulata'' ... si apoi exista destule izvoare scrise cu date precise...care nu au cum sa fie falsificate.
linkurile lui sadang au o conotatie adiacenta subiectului nostru si au legatura cu particulele elementare si nu cu istoria.
Chiar daca datarea cu carbon 14 s-ar putea sa fie putin eronata cine a citit istoria lumii poate sa vada ca exista o inlantuire logica a datelor si evenimentelor istorice.
,,Operele'' unor asa numiti cercetatori istorici ca Fomenko si Nosovsky ,Morozov si altii sunt ale unor minti intunecate care incearca sa destabilizeze mintile adolescentilor sau ale oamenilor mai slab de ingeri si sa-i intoarca in evul mediu.
Departe de mine toate acestea ....sa-i prosteasca pe altii desi eu le-as interzice operele pentru ca pot semana anarhie si conflicte sociale daca prind la oamenii slabi...

Vezi CAdi, asta este diferenta dintre un ochi avizat si unul mai putin antrenat in a vedea subtilitatile, profunzimea, dincolo de aparente... Sandokhan a sesizat imediat esenta din acele link-uri, si legatura lor cu acest topic.

"changing decay of radioactive elements", extrapoland ceea ce se intampla materialele radiocative se intampla cu toata materia. Iar evenimentele se desfasoara logaritmic, nu liniar. Si asa cum am mai spus acest fenomen nu se intampla prima data, deoarece totul are o ciclitate, dar nu circulara ci elicoidala, iar tot si toate se deruleaza pe o scara logaritmica nu liniara. Crezi ca raportul sau numarul de aur se aplica doar la geometrie? Mai gandestete...

Deschideti mintea cat mai mult, treci peste blocajele mentale existente, si vei incepe sa vezi (intelegi) din ce in ce mai mult. Asta daca ai curaj, pentru ca nu este usor sa accepti ce vei incepe sa intelegi. "Mintea refuza sa accepte" asa ceva, ca sa-l parafrazez pe WoodyCad.

Dictonul "Cautati (Aflati, Cunoasteti) adevarul si acesta va va face liberi" nu are nici o nuanta spatialo-temporala. Oare de ce nu a fost folosit cuvantul Gasiti? Mai gandestete...

Sadang ce aveti fratilor?! doar nu vrei sa spui si tu ca istoria lumii a inceput pe la 1500?(e.n.desi sandokhan nu a vrut sa explice ce inseamna e.n.)
Mai gandeste-te tu...

Ce vrei sa spui ca piramidele aztece ,poarta soarelui,capetele de la Tenochtitlan ,calendarul mayas,figurinele de la Nazca,renumitul oras incas Tiahuanaco,retelele rutiere de mii de kilometri incase au fost construite dupa 1500?
Sau dinastia Yin de la 1466i.e.n. din China ,marele zid chinezesc(singura constructie de pe Terra care se vede de pe Luna) care a fost fondat incepand cu anul 214 i.e.n. si care se se intinde pe cca 6500 de km a fost construit dupa 1500 e.n.in cativa ani?Ha, ha ,ha ma faci sa rad!
Babilonul fondat in 2350 i.e.n.de catre asiro-babilonieni cu celebrele gradini ale Semiramidei a fost construit dupa 1500 e.n.? Fuga evreilor din Egipt sub conducerea lui Moise pe la 1280 i.e.n si Biblia asa cum o cunoastem noi a fost scrisa..... dupa 1500 e.n.?
Dar ce ai zice daca ti-as spune ca Arienii (unii banuiesc ca ar fi urmasii atlantilor) au ajuns in India pe la 10.000 i.e.n altii spun de 2500 i.e.n si au scris Vedele cartile filozofice si religioase ale vechii Indii? Asadar si acestea au fost scrise dupa 1500 e.n?
Buda, (Gautama fiu de rege)550-480 i.e.n a infiintat budismul dupa 1500 e.n.?
Persii a caror maretie istorica este consemnata prin cei trei mari regi: Cambise , Darius(care ia atacat pe sciti la Dunare in anul 512 I.e.n. si invins de greci la Maraton in 490 I.e.n.) si Xerxes ,a carui flota a fost invinsa la Salamina de greci ....au aparut in istorie dupa 1500 e.n.?
Civilizatia Greaca aparuta prin 2000 i.e.n. impreuna cu statuile ,templele ei,colosul din Rodos si mai ales prin artistii Eschil,Sofocle,Euripide,Aristofan,filosofii ei Socrate,Platon,Aristotel si parintele medicinei Hipocrat din Kos ,toti acestia au aparut .....dupa 1500 e.n.?

Sa nu mai vorbim de Egipt!
Cu celebrele piramide de la Gizeh ridicate prin mileniile 3 si2 i.e.n dintre care cele mai celebre sunt cele ale regilor Keops,Kefren si Mikerinos ca sa nu mai vorbim de cea a lui TutanKamon !....acestea..... au fost ridicate dupa 1500 e.n. in cativa ani?
Ce sa mai spunem despre vestita Vale a Regilor unde este ingropat si Ramses II?
Ca sa nu mai vorbim de Imhotep -arhitectul ,autorul marilor constructii initiate de faraonul Joser din dinastia a III-a acesta .....s-a nascut dupa 1500e.n.?Ma faci sa rad!
Istoria Romei inceputa pe la 753 i.e.n.(cand Romulus a intemeiat-o) si a carei istorie a fost consemnata an cu an si eveniment dupa eveniment de istoricii latini printre care Sallustius, Titus Livius, Caesar si Cornelius Tacitus,
Cicero, Dio Cassius etc .....toti acestia s-au nascut dupa 1500 e.n.?
Mai ganditi-va voi sadang si sandokhan! (si nu mai indocrinati mintile oamenilor cu fel si fel de idei)

1

Am discutat deja despre Marele Zid Chinezesc, construit dupa 1900:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27892#27892 (not so ancient china 1)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27945#27945 (not so ancient china 2)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27981#27981 (not so ancient china 3)

De asemenea:

http://www.ihaal.com/articles/A%20chronological%20revolution%20made%20by%20historical%20analytics.pdf

Nu a avut loc nici un fel de exod al evreilor din Egipt:

Who wrote the Bible/Koran?

Independent but nearly simultaneous proposals by H. B. Witter, Jean Astruc, and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn separated the Pentateuch into two original documentary components, both dating from after the time of Moses. Others hypothesized the presence of two additional sources. The four documents were given working titles: J (Jahwist/Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist). Each was discernible by its own characteristic language, and each, when read in isolation, presented a unified, coherent narrative.

The documentary hypothesis has more recently been refined by later scholars such as Martin Noth (who in 1943 provided evidence that Deuteronomy plus the following six books make a unified history from the hand of a single editor), Harold Bloom, Frank Moore Cross and Richard Elliot Friedman.

1 and 2 Samuel were written BEFORE the priestly version was invented (the priestly version was written according to the official chronology at least 600 - 800 years after the Exodus; this version which consists of, among other numerous passages, the whole book of Leviticus, Exodus chapters 25-32, 35-40, Numbers 3-10, 15-20, 27-30, 35-36, Deuteronomy 18, Joshua 22):

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/latedate.html (one of the very best)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_source

http://islamworld.net/torah.html

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160971.html

In our radical new chronology, the Old/New Testaments were written in the period 1715 - 1720, after the crucifixion of Iesous Christos in 1715, at Troy/Constantinopole.


(1) that the tabernacle never existed except on paper; (2) that it was a pure creation of priestly imagination sketched after or during the exile; (3) that it was meant to be a miniature sanctuary on the model of Solomon's Temple; (4) that it was represented as having been built in the wilderness for the purpose of legitimizing the newly-published Priestly Code (P) or Levitical ritual still preserved in the middle books of the Pentateuch; and (5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in the Priestly Code (P) (Ex 25 through 31; 36 through 40; Nu 2:2,17; 5:1-4; 14:44) conflicts with that given in the Elohist (E) (Ex 33:7-11), both as to its character and its location.

Also the book of Judges, chapters 13 and 21 contradict directly the laws/regulations written down in the book of Leviticus.

The author of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel and the book of Judges HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of the laws/regulations in the Leviticus/Numbers/Exodus, as these were created well after the (J) and (E) versions.


http://www.talkreason.org/articles/letter1.cfm


http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho6.htm (tremendous research, one of the very best)

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho3.htm

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho4.htm

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho1.htm


http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju03.htm (exceptionally documented)

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju04.htm

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju05.htm

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju01.htm

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju02.htm


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/tales_timeloop/tales_timeloop09.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret04.htm

A third model developed, much more radical in its approach. The archaeological evidence now was interpreted to demonstrate that the Israelites did not originate outside the land, but were in origin Canaanites who had shifted gears. Israelite pottery was indistinguishable from Canaanite pottery; Israelite architecture was indistinguishable from Canaanite architecture; Israelite water systems were indistinguishable from Canaanite water systems; and so on. All of this meant that the Israelites were Canaanites. http://arts.mcgill.ca/jewish/30yrs/rendsburg/index.html

No historical David/Solomon

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc6/dsmyth.htm

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

Also, the quote from Jeremiah 7:22 contradicts directly the laws/regulations of the Leviticus. There have been attempts to explain this quote (Jeremiah 7:22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...) within the context of figurative language, an argument which can be contradicted immediately:

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/fprophet.html
http://www.awitness.org/essays/levjer.html

Bible Unearthed (Finkelstein/Silberman)

The Bible Unearthed begins by considering what it terms the 'preamble' of the bible?the Book of Genesis?and its relationship to archaeological evidence for the context in which its narratives are set. Archaeological discoveries about society and culture in the ancient near east lead the authors to point out a number of anachronisms, suggestive that the narratives were actually set down in the 9th-7th centuries:

* Aramaeans are frequently mentioned, but no ancient text mentions them until around 1100BCE, and they only begin to dominate Israel's northern borders after the 9th century BCE.
* The text describes the early origin of the neighbouring kingdom of Edom, but Assyrian records show that Edom only came into existence after the conquest of the region by Assyria; before then it was without functioning kings, wasn't a distinct state, and archaeological evidence shows that the territory was only sparsely populated.
* The Joseph story refers to camel-based traders carrying gum, balm, and myrrh, an unlikely event for the first millennium, but quite common in the 8th-7th centuries BCE, when Assyrian hegemony enabled this Arabian trade to flourish into a major industry.
* The land of Goshen has a name that comes from an Arabic group who only dominated the Nile Delta in the 6th and 5th centuries.
* The Egyptian Pharaoh is portrayed as fearing invasion from the east, even though Egypt's territory stretched to the northern parts of Canaan, with its main threat consequently being from the north, until the 7th century

The book comments that this corresponds with the documentary hypothesis, in which textual scholarship argues for the majority of the first five biblical books being written between the 8th and 6th centuries.

Finkelstein and Silberman argue that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture.Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BCE in which villages appear in the previously unpopulated highlands;these settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the Late Bronze Age collapse of the Canaanite city-culture.


Am vorbit deja despre Dio Cassius si Buddha, fa-ti temele cadi...


Exploding the myth of Mozart:

http://www.rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm

Masoneria, Cavalerii de Malta au aparut, ca societati secrete in public, abia dupa 1820...Flautul Fermecat nu avea cum sa fie compus decat dupa aceasta data...

http://hiramabiff0.tripod.com/id27.html

Legatura dintre numarul de aur si partiturile atribuite lui Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven:

http://whosemusicisit.blogspot.com/2009/07/fibonacci-sequence-in-music-is-music.html

Evidence suggests that classical music composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach embraces phi.


In a 1996 article in the American Scientist, for example, Mike Kay reported that Mozart’s sonatas were divided into two parts exactly at the Golden Mean point in almost all cases. Inasmuch as Mozart’s sister had said that Amadeus was always playing with numbers and fascinated by mathematics, it appears that this was either a conscious choice or an intuitive one. Meanwhile, Derek Haylock noted that in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (possibly his most famous one), the famous opening “motto” appears in the first and last bars, but also at the Golden Mean point (0.618) of the way through the symphony, as well as 0.382 of the way (i.e., the Golden Mean squared). Again, was it by design or accident? Keep in mind that Bartók, Debussy, Schubert, Bach and Satie may have also deliberately used the Golden Mean in their music.

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#mozart

Beethoven, francmason; dar fiindca masoneria apare in public abia dupa 1820, aceste date biografice au fost introduse mult mai tarziu, la fel ca si pentru Mozart:

Ludwig van Beethoven, there are strong grounds for believing that he was a mason.
"Many of his friends and fellow musicians were masons and there are several references to Masonry in his voluminous correspondence. The Adagio of his Seventh quartet bears the superscription: 'A weeping willow or an acacia over the grave of my brother'. Both Beethoven’s blood brothers were alive when this work was written and so these words probably had a masonic connection. Schindler, one of his biographers, mentions a handshake when visiting the composer: '... a grip of our hands said the rest'. A song, 'What is the Mason’s aim', was written for the 'Loge des Freres Courageaux l'Orient de Bonn' and was published in 1806."
"His presence at concerts given with full masonic rites is documented, and presumably, in order to have been allowed to attend he must have at least been initiated into the Brotherhood."

In opinia mea, primii compozitori reali (din punct de vedere istoric), au fost Schumann, Wagner si Brahms...

http://www.slate.com/id/2206021/

Muzica Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones scrisa de T. Adorno:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#1462